British scientists get to root of global warming "debate"
Here's where the global warming "debate" stands right now: On the science of global warming, there is little debate -- just an overwhelming consensus among experts that temperatures are rising, and human activity is a major factor.
But the idea that there is a "debate" stays alive, largely because politicians and the media are plied with a steady stream of dubious data -- produced by academics who are funded by energy companies -- which argues that either global warming isn't a problem, or that human activity isn't to blame.
As long as industry-backed "studies" are available, officials dedicated to inaction can bog the issue down -- like NOAA press officer (and media head for the GOP's 2004 convention) Chuck Fuqua, who denied CNBC an interview with a NOAA scientist because he disagreed with business-backed researchers that denied a link between human activity and global warming. [SEE UPDATE ABOVE.]
Paying scientists to say global warming isn't an issue has been a successful industry strategy for decades. But the tide may be turning, as scientists and political leaders attack the issue at its roots by exposing science-for-hire.
We reported last month about the office of Gov. Tim Kaine in Virginia condemning state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels -- a global warming-denier at the University of Virginia who received $150,000 from a Colorado utility company to fund his research.
Today, the Guardian in London reports that scientists are turning up pressure on Dallas-based ExxonMobil for its role in propping up bad science:
UPDATE: One item not clear in the post: the Royal Society had received a pledge from Exxon earlier this year that it wouldn't continue to fund groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which in the wake of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, had "welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution." The Royal Society's latest letter (pdf) is aimed at ensuring the energy giant is honoring the pledge.
But the idea that there is a "debate" stays alive, largely because politicians and the media are plied with a steady stream of dubious data -- produced by academics who are funded by energy companies -- which argues that either global warming isn't a problem, or that human activity isn't to blame.
As long as industry-backed "studies" are available, officials dedicated to inaction can bog the issue down -- like NOAA press officer (and media head for the GOP's 2004 convention) Chuck Fuqua, who denied CNBC an interview with a NOAA scientist because he disagreed with business-backed researchers that denied a link between human activity and global warming. [SEE UPDATE ABOVE.]
Paying scientists to say global warming isn't an issue has been a successful industry strategy for decades. But the tide may be turning, as scientists and political leaders attack the issue at its roots by exposing science-for-hire.
We reported last month about the office of Gov. Tim Kaine in Virginia condemning state climatologist Patrick J. Michaels -- a global warming-denier at the University of Virginia who received $150,000 from a Colorado utility company to fund his research.
Today, the Guardian in London reports that scientists are turning up pressure on Dallas-based ExxonMobil for its role in propping up bad science:
Britain's leading scientists have challenged the US oil company ExxonMobil to stop funding groups that attempt to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change.The question now: on this side of the Atlantic, will the National Academy of Sciences join in calling for Big Energy to get out of meddling in climate research, and support the integrity of free scientific inquiry?In an unprecedented step, the Royal Society, Britain's premier scientific academy, has written to the oil giant to demand that the company withdraws support for dozens of groups that have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence".
The scientists also strongly criticise the company's public statements on global warming, which they describe as "inaccurate and misleading".
UPDATE: One item not clear in the post: the Royal Society had received a pledge from Exxon earlier this year that it wouldn't continue to fund groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which in the wake of Al Gore's film An Inconvenient Truth, had "welcomed increased carbon dioxide pollution." The Royal Society's latest letter (pdf) is aimed at ensuring the energy giant is honoring the pledge.
7 Comments:
Clearly, the "facts have a liberal bias."
Your statement: "On the science of global warming, there is little debate -- just an overwhelming consensus among experts that temperatures are rising, and human activity is a major factor" is partially correct.
True, most scientists agree that the earth is getting hotter; however, the scientific community is split when it comes to the impact that humans are having on global warming.
The debate is alive...even though you may say it's not.
Anonymous -- Do you have any evidence of the "split" in the scientific community over whether humans are having an impact on global warming? For example, here is an excerpt from the December 2004 issue of Science magazine:
"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21].
IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3].
Others agree. The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling."
Is there debate about models, degree of change, how fast warming is occuring, etc.? Yes.
Is there a real debate, outside of industry-funded studies, that global warming is happening, and that human activity is a signficant factor? No.
Here's a link to the Science article:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Global climate has never been this worst for the past 500 years. Based on scientific studies, harmful emmissions from plants, cars and other fuel burning machines are the major culprit to the rapid climate change. This phenomenon called global warming has been felt in several parts of the world and is noticable in the abnormal behavior of thyphoons and tidal waves.
it is everybodys responsiblity to help maintain the environment and save mother earth.
You might find this sites useful:
Alternative Fuels
Future Cars
Hybrid Cars
The naysayers, as always, seldom if ever show any diffinitive fact that humans ARE NOT causing global warming. They always attack the messenger, or do not conclusively debate the facts coming from unbiased scientists. The "scientific" reports coming from scientists on the side against global warming are all biased, paid for by oil corporations who benefit financially from human consumption of fossil fuels.
Regardless, in the end we will ALL pay the price for not taking action in controlling this life threatening dilemma.
"Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action"
What makes science funded by the exceedingly corrupt U.N. more valid than science paid for by an oil company?
Each have their own political agenda and both ought to be regarded with a degree of skepticism.
Post a Comment
Return to Facing South's main page